In addition to particular responses from other members who may have noticed such a potential decline in remuneration, if any, I would encourage the poster of this forum entry to regularly check IACCM annual salary review. Please refer to our IACCM library, by clicking on www.iaccm.com/resources/contract-management-resources/

AltoPartners is the global provider of executive search services to corporate members of the IACCM.
www.iaccm.com/contract-management-jobs/executive-search/

cheers
Richard Sterling
AltoPartners

• IACCM
•
2016-08-16 05:57:58

Hi Audrey
Yes, we have relevant data and will send this to you. It will help if you can offer brief context in terms of role (buy side / sell side; national versus international / global responsibilities; types of agreement typically handled; scope of activity - preaward/post-award/ both). Please send any background direct to me - tcummins@iaccm.com

Under Common Law principles, liability for personal injury or death cannot be excluded. So it most likely makes no difference whether or not the provision is struck because the customer could not deny their legal liability in the event of negligence leading to this form of loss.

•
2014-04-15 08:14:35

What if there is an industry practise/custom to allow a party to exclude its liability even for its own negligence and it is being upheld by the court of law. What happens then?

•
2014-04-17 10:58:42

I think that the second question goes to the difference between an indemnity and ordinary liability. Under general Common Law principles, the lack of an indemnity for a particular thing does not necessarily mean that a party won't be liable for that thing. The specific issue here is a legal question. It's probably worth a call to counsel so that you can be certain you will be covered in this circumstance. I see this as a different question than "excluding" liability for one's own negligence. Such clauses typically require clearing a higher legal hurdle.

All this said, I really do not understand why the customer would be so unwilling to indemnify for harm they caused. It's generally considered a reasonable commitment.

Me too. I would be interested to hear what others have found in selection of a CLM.

• EY
•
2019-08-22 09:53:40

Hello,

I am not a buyer of CLM solution but a seller. I work for EY and have developed a easy plug-in and use SharePoint based CLM solution. Would be happy to participate in the RFP/RFI process. My email ID is: Kulbir.kaur@in.ey.com.

As for my tool the below features are available at extremely reasonable pricing and very easy to use format.

Hi Geoff. We found a lot of the systems on the market, whilst all really good, focussed on workflow. Emails and notifications of moments and issues galore. I've always found that you don't need that if you have the right team, this isn't needed. They know what thy have to do, what stage in the process and when. So that for me was a major issue.

The second thing is a lot of them have lots of functionality around the back and forth and negotiation of clauses. I'd suggest again if you have really good templates and good early engagement, you reduce the back and forth required and can get the benefits of quicker turnaround and e-signatures without a bigger system.

I would flag that you should not underestimate the work required to get your current information into the new system. It's probably going to be more than the annual fees to set up. In the RFP / RFI - get them to tell you their plans and costs for getting the records in the system. It's not just the scanning of records, but also the information in the contracts (milestones, conditions) that need to come in.

Finally, I'd really recommend that you bring in as many people as possible into this process, especially in the procurement team. The users and the team are the ones that will have to use this solution going forward and keep your records in that format for all of those wonderful visuals and reports that the new system spits out. I've seen and heard of many instances where the new CLM has failed because the team and users haven't brought into the solution.

We've been lucky with our solution (it's a simple one that we developed in house) because :
(a) it wasn't an all at once deployment. People have had time to think about the system and what it could do
(b) the team have then been able to take the system to an even higher level than anything I had in mind. Templates for contracts, evaluation and issues registers - all really awesome stuff that went way beyond my initial ideas.

I hope this aids your thinking, and if you want to talk further, please message me.

• BDO LLP
•
2019-08-29 15:47:27

I saw your post this morning and wanted to reach out about your question. I lead the consulting practice at BDO USA LLP that focuses on precisely the scenario you are asking about. We are solution/platform agnostic and seek to ensure the "right" solution - regardless of vendor - is selected so that something that is too big or too complex isn't inadvertently chosen from the many, many good solutions out there. Feel free to give me a call at 703-770-4453 or email at tfuchs@bdo.com. I'd be happy to share my thoughts with you. Thanks! Tom

In the US, Texas or New York are largely considered "neutral territory" whereas in Europe, until very recently UK law was considered neutral. I think that may change with the recent political upheaval.

In terms of the 8 different payment schemes I was specifically referring to what we call 'payment curves' (see attached graphic) as opposed to payment regimes such as cost+ (time and material), fixed price, cost + fixed fee, etc. In this light these are grouped into 5 main families with a couple of variations inside each. These are as follows:

The intent of this discussion is to simply highlight that the choice of payment curve, similar to the choice of performance measure and level, can have a significant impact on the success (or otherwise) of the overall performance management framework. My blog (www.performancebasedcontracting.com) has 3 posts specifically on this topic including the graphics.

I hope this helps and answers your questions. However, please let me know if you have any further questions.

Whilst it's the way that a lot more suppliers seem to be going, if you think about this in with your procurement hat on - and that is what's going to happen at the end of 3-5 years - it's tough to see you doing anything but just rolling this over (and over and over again) as someone else has all of your data on their server.

At the risk of being awfully contentious, my own experience is that in a lot of circumstances, there's little consideration of whole of life costs - especially with that thinking about what's to happen in 3-5 years. Right now, many of these purchases done right now are flying under the radar of procurement teams because they're below procurement limits or just being called operational expenditure within business delegated authorities.

That said, one of the benefits that I've also seen is that upgrades happen automatically on the server of the host without the business having to create teams to do this, especially where there was a major upgrade - which were previously a big financial impact on many businesses.